Ben, you're the president of common sense. No one can take that from you. But the following Walking Golfer walkability ratings are pure nonsense:
Sharon Woods, Cincinnati, OH - I played a tournament there last summer. I played with 7 different guys over two days. All but one walked the course. As my local home course, I would guess that close to 40% of players out there walk it. It was built well before the advent of the motorized cart. The site rates it "essentially unwalkable" and suggests Ballyhack would be an easier stroll. Insert tears of laughter emoji here.
Wolf Run in Indiana is rated "tough to walk" (the Ballyhack category!) while the Ross Course at French Lick is rated "Easy to walk." I regularly walk 36+ at Wolf Run in a day, and the Ross at French Lick has the most severe terrain of any Ross I've ever played. There's no way that the Ross is two categories easier than Wolf Run, and anyone who has tried to walk 36 a day at Ballyhack should be psychologically evaluated when they finally make it back to the clubhouse sometime next spring.
Colorado Golf Club is rated Tough to Walk, just like Fossil Trace... and Ballyhack...
Crystal Downs and Kingsley Club are listed as "easy" walks, while Rustic Canyon is listed as only "manageable" thanks to some long green to tee transitions. There's no way in hell that either of those courses is easier to walk than Rustic Canyon.
The Walking Golfer's ratings are useless as long as they're so variable. I can't imagine anyone would ever feel comfortable looking at a rating from the site before choosing whether to walk or ride a course, as they'd be stuck in a cart while surrounded by walkers at Sharon Woods before being found dead in the ravine on 11 after trying to walk Ballyhack. For any "walking course" recognition to have value, it needs to be bestowed with some set of standard criteria in mind. Otherwise we're just randomly coloring a spreadsheet for fun and giving ourselves an excuse to hold events at private courses once in a while.